Obama and the 'Threats We Face' (UPDATED)

I knew that sensible rhetoric on anything from the good senator was too good to last.

[The Iraq War] distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century.

That's an excerpt from Senator Obama's prepared remarks for a speech to be given today. The topic? The biggest threats facing the United States.

What will our putative 44th president do to further the goals of the Global War on Terror? Take the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Pakistan--with or without Pakistan's permission, one assumes.

My questions: 1) Why is he announcing his conclusions before his trip to Afghanistan and Iraq and not afterward? 2) Why is he broadcasting to an ally in the GWOT that he plans to violate their sovereignty? 3) Why does he pronounce everything with which he disagrees a "distraction?"

The speech will be conducted at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in DC.

MORE: The article mentions Obama's Monday op-ed in the New York Times in which the senator agreed with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's "call for a timetable for American troops to leave Iraq." Unfortunately for the senator the prime minister was misquoted/mistranslated.

The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".

That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.

It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.

There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said. [SNIP]

What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."

I doubt, however, that this will have an effect on the senator's 'pull out now' rhetoric.

But now that I think about it, I wonder whether Obama will go to Iraq and "allow himself to have his mind changed" by the troops on the ground. That would be a more artful and plausible flip-flop than the type he's used to making.

UPDATE: I changed my mind. The trip will make no difference wrt to Obama's intention to abandon Iraq.

Comments

[Martn Bebow]

I had thought that when Senator Obama indicated last week he might change his stance on an Iraq pullout that I might have to give him another chance. Apparently the reaction from his anti-war supporters made him back off any change to his Iraq policy. I also really hated his 'aggressive diplomacy' comment with respect to Iran's show of missile power. For his information war is aggressive, diplomacy is not.

[Venomous Kate]

What do we call it when someone makes up their mind about something they know very little about, have never had personal exposure to, and are yet resolved that personal experience will in no way change their initial opinion?

Oh, that's right: ignorance.

Obama's ignorant, and the sad thing is that he's too arrogant to realize it.